The Flat Earth Society...

[exedir]

And this is different than the President Hamilton Admiration Club, I suppose.

So, what we have is not a difference of scientific opinion, but fact, or facts as presented by, science, scientifically. Of course, one has to be reminded that science does indeed, marches on, in what was science and scientific fact.

Once, it was believed that the universe revolved around the earth, as fact, because it couldn't be refuted and as such, complied with belief, belief that god made the earth the center of the universe, and the point was, that he was god and he could do whatever he wanted. Once, it was believed that much of what made people sick were "humors" in the blood, and clearly by removing the bad humors cures could be achieved. And those techniques including blood letting and applying blood sucking leeches as ways to remove what was making someone sick, and making them better, and if they died, will, god wanted it that way, so the treatment was good regardless.

I am also reminded of an episode of that fountain of scientific knowledge of the future, "Star Trek ", where Dr. McCoy, "Bones", is put into the past, that past being the then current(the sixties) America and having to deal with the then present medicine crisis. His summation of his ancient colleagues and their practices much less their knowledge, was they were "barbaric" as compared to what he had in 220th century in dealing with medicine and medical issues of the crew members of the Starship Enterprise, who, by the way, had way old flip phones to communicate with.  I am also reminded of an old Saturday Night Live sketch, that featured Steve Martin as Yorick, physician of York, who demonstrates some what interesting, but not too comfortable treatments, used as the cutting edge of medical science at the time, around 1200 or so.

And my point is?

So science is not stable and is dynamic. It changes overtime, as more and newer facts and observations are added. And as such, there are necessary changes to be made in viewpoints, theories and yes, beliefs. As of now, we are in the process of such a change in the argument from global warming as a fact, to, overall climate change as a fact, given our current experience with the Arctic Vortex 1&2. The problem with the entire climate issue is we still don't really know what we are talking about. We know that climate changes, and changes dramatically, and has done so many times in the past. We can assume climate change will happen in the future, but, why? We know a lot and we know it is complicated. There are many factors to be consider in a very dynamic, gaseous mix we call the atmosphere. One thing we do know for sure, is, the atmosphere is driven by the energy of heat, and all of that initial heat is generated by a star, our sun. And other than worshiping it, the sun that is, we know that the sun impacts on the climate, environment and everything that lives, has lived and will live on the earth and overall, it all is very complex and complicated to understand and to predict.

So, is earth flat?  No, the earth is not flat. And is the Secretary of State correct in saying, those that doubt the voracity of climate change and what is causing it, isn't science, be anything but correct? But then again, does the Secretary have a Tricorder either?

I think not.

[ProblemAgain]

let's use a nice analogy to make sense of all this...changing our societal behavior to curtail emissions and pollutants etc in the hope of alleviating climate change  even if it isn't proved to 100 per cent satisfaction of everyone is kind of like wearing a seatbelt. if it turns out we didn't need to, the planet is still in better shape than it was and therefore the kids will be healthier etc etc. if it turns out to be true, at least we have the seatbelt and don't go 60mph facefirst into the brick wall

[exedir]

Prudent, attainable, objectionable, cost effective and cost efficient are not seemingly the criteria used in most of the discussion of what is, where is and what it means about climate change.

What is heartening is the discussion has move to the more precise issue of long-term climate and climate change...global warming is a facet of what might be happening but only a facet that gets the attention of people as they see their daily weather reports, which included seriously subzero temperatures in the winter, this winter for many to note and consider.  

The issue is compounded by what is the environment and what is the climate and how do they work as one, which of course, they do, but how?  The entire issue is a mix of issues, complex and compounded in ways we have not been able to unwind or unscramble with what we know and how we know it.

Much of this will come with the required element of good science, time.  What is being proposed as ideas, beliefs and attempts to mitigate what is yet unknown, is good, pandering politics to garner votes, but not particularly good science, that does need to be supported so as to do the research and limit, and eliminate conjecture, bias and missing and false and incorrect data.  

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Always with the BU__SH__ ...

In other words, the cheap bastards, Republicans, want to keep on polluting the atmosphere because doing anything about it, spending money, will effect their precious bottom line(s).

[LoveLife&Laughter]

[LoveLife&Laughter]

There are no changes to be made to "global warming", it is a fact to 99.9% of Real Scientists.  That includes me.  

Only the wacko religious, retards, and Republicans (in the pockets of the 1%) can't or won't understand.

[ProblemAgain]

for some reason or other (possibly BECAUSE it is a theory and therefore can't be 'proved' like it can be proved that smacking a forehead with a hammer is painful), clinate change is the new talking point for the far right.

"Science proves to be anything but settled"

http://tablet.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/HoustonChronicle/Share...

an opinion piece by charles krauthammer. as usual, long on politics and short on facts. actually it's pretty pisspoor at facts and spends a lot of its energy in vitriol rather than proofs. freeman dyson who is cited has nothing to do with climatology and is a physicist. john christy who is cited has reversed his position

Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.

as far as complaining about obama traveling in air force one, i guess krauthammer expects them all to ride bicycles from washington to california...all in all a silly exercise in bs...

perhaps this is the only field where they can't be definitively proved to be fucking stupid since in science, there is no "final" answer in theories. those open minds are such a mess, aren't they?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Why are so many Republican Partisans / Activists pathological liars?

[ProblemAgain]

look what they have to offer? would you tell the truth if that's what you had? picture a sleazy used car salesman crossed with a blowdried televangelist working out of a defunct 7/11 store...

[Ioruach]

Pathologically stupid, perhaps?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Seems that way but remember, there's as many of them as there are us.  Every voting day is fairly close.

[Ioruach]

Yeah, but if we just count brain cells, we badly outnumber them. Each brain cell should count as one vote.